tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN April 25, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
i'm don lemon. president trump has had his troubles with federal judges. a judge in san francisco blocking the executive order on immigration. riance priebus says the ninth circuit is going bananas. michael flynn may have broke the law when he failed to properly disclose payments on russia. joining me is mark preston, gloria borger and pamela brown. also philip mudd, jack kingston and michael moore, the former u.s. attorney for the middle district of georgia. good evening, everyone. pamela, we'll start with you for the news on this. the latest on the state of the russian investigation. and particularly general flynn. did he break the law in his dealings with russia while he was an adviser to the trump campaign. >> members of the house oversight committee say it's likely that he did break the law
after reviewing classified documents today. after reviewing those documents they have seen no proof showing flynn received permission from the pentagon or state department for the foreign government payments he received from both russia and turkey and they say he didn't fully disclose the more than half a million dollars his firm was given for lobbying activities on behalf of turkey when he applied to reinstate his security clearance before he became the national security adviser. he didn't disclose the $45,000 he received from russia for rt tv speaking engage lt. because of those issues, it appears that he may have broken the law here, don. >> jason chaffetz is speaking out tonight. he spoke to manu raju. phil, this is for you so pay particular attention to this. >> personally, i see no information or no data to support the notion that general flynn complied with the law. and that is he was supposed to seek permission and receive permission from both the secretary of state and the
secretary of the army prior to traveling to russia to not only accept that payment but to engage in that activity. i see no evidence that he actually did that. >> the reason i'm giving it to you is because you have very strong opinions about what chaffetz said today. explain why. >> i think he's dead wrong. look. there's somebody who investigates whether there's a violation of law. that's the fbi. there's somebody in the executive branch who determines whether to take that to a court, whether to ask a judge and a jury whether someone has committed a crime. that's the department of justice. the congress has a role here. their role is significant. that is, can we protect candidates in the next election to ensure they don't get hacked. can we have a conversation with twitter, yahoo! facebook about ensuring that fake news gets off the internet? it's not jason chaffetz's problem to determine who committed a crime. that's the department of justice. he crossed the line here. the house committee repeatedly has been involved in a farcical investigation, and this is another step.
he should not have suggested that there is a crime committed. that's for the department of justice. >> so what -- phil then, should this be taken out of the hands of the house? should there be a special prosecutor, a special investigation? should someone else be handling this investigation? >> i think there should be because repeatedly from the house we've seen they're trying to investigate whether individuals involved with the trump campaign committed a federal violation. they should be not looking in the rear-view mirror. they should be looking forward to the next election, the next election and saying, how do we protect the american people. repeatedly they've shown, start with devin nunes who said in a politically motivated move, i've got to inform the white house before i inform the committee and now with jason chaffetz saying i've got to suggest that a white house official committed a crime instead of investigating how to protect the american people from fake news. they've repeatedly shown they
cannot conduct this investigation without partisan allegations about people involved with the trump campaign. inappropriate. >> let's talk about the whourks gloria. they declined to provide documents related to flynn that the house oversight committee requested. a white house aide says they don't have documents and redirected the committee to the relevant agencies. do you think the white house is stonewalling here? >> no, i think they're done with flynn. i think they defended him until they could no longer defend him, and they found a reason to fire him, which was, you know, not telling the truth to mike pence. but i think they are done with him, and i want no fingerprints on him no more. and the issue here is not just the issue we're talking about. and russia and the speeches, et cetera. the issue also is the question of disclosure about lobbying for turkey. while he was on advising donald trump. and i think what would happen if
you investigate all this, one of the reasons the white house doesn't want you to have documents is you'd see the vetting process was not up to snuff and that perhaps they didn't know as much as they should have known. and if they didbe even a bigger them. so i think as far as they're concerned, you know, their best avenue here, although it's not transparent, their best avenue here is to deflect and to say, talk to the law enforcement agencies. this is no longer our problem. not our problem. he doesn't work here anymore. >> how can it not be their problem. how can he be done with them? he was so close. he was an adviser. >> right, was. >> served as national security adviser for a short amount of time. and then as you were saying, as you were talking about vetting, i was writing extreme vetting. how can they be done with him? >> the question is whether they are done with him because that's
up to law enforcement to figure out. and the congressional committees are going to look at it. and you know that his lawyer has been trying to get immunity for him. and we'll see where that goes. it looks at this moment like it's going nowhere. but this is a white house that doesn't want to be talking about flynn. we're heading into the first 100 days. they've got other problems they've got to deal with right now. you'll deal with that later. the ruling on sanctuary cities. a problem on the travel ban and health case, et cetera. so that's a problem they think is in their rear-view mirror. they think it's gone and they don't want to touch it anymore, don. and that's what sean was telegraphing in a really strong way today. >> i'm glad you brought that up. mark is feverishly scribbling notes. >> are you disagreeing with me? >> i think he just wants to jump in. she brought up sean spicer. and i want to play what sean spicer had to say and mark, you can respond. >> i don't -- that would be a
question for him and law enforcement agency whether he filled -- i don't know what he filled out and what he did or did not do. he filled that form out prior to come here. it would be up to the committee and other authorities to look at that. i don't know. >> the question was whether he broke the law. what does it say about the trump administration's vetting. >> gloria, i agree with you on something right now. bottom line is, let's just go back to when he was let go by the white house, when president trump forced him to resign. was vice president mike pence who was very upset at michael flynn for failing to tell him truthfully what was going on right now. they are at a time where they wanted to cut the rope and they thought the rope was cut and that michael flynn would have to deal with it himself. little do they know they can't do that right now. they are so ensnared in this whether they like it or not that they have to deal with the issue. and when you see sean spicer up there right now, somebody who he himself is in the service right
now, he's active military, he's got to be saying to himself, why am i up here having to answer for the sins, potential sins of somebody else. >> michael, you think this could be big trouble not only for flynn but for the vice presid t president. how come? >> i do, don. i think the bigger problem is mike pence and mike flynn. the vice president was in charge of the transition team. essentially what happened, they had a guy, that being flynn, who was just a few hands away from the nuclear koid codes and the missed this problem. they didn't vet him appropriately. they were trying to make sure they ran it like a casting call. we had people showing up at trump tower and riding elevators and shaking hands. they should have been digging around and find out if any of these problems existed. it would be a problem for mike pence, and i agree with the
other panelist who said they don't want to talk about it because it goes well beyond mike flynn. >> what should the white house do? >> they should turn over documents that they have, but at the same time, they've got to move on. elijah cummings has said there's no sign of them being obstructionist. and i think they should let the lawyers look at it. i think flynn does have very serious problems. i've had to do some of these forms, not all of them, but i know the disclosure of who you visit and who you are working for, all of that is very basic, and yet if you are an applicant for one of these jobs, you can sometimes fudge. early on when you talk about somebody who is with the campaign 2015, 2016, kind of grew in it and probably did not get the oversight of some of the newer applicants. and i know for example a friend of mine is up for one of the white house jobs. and one of the questions he's asked is name everybody in the world who might not want you to
work here. and it's that -- >> jack, but what are you saying? i have no idea what you're saying. >> what i'm saying is i think that general flynn came in through the campaign ranks. he was not vetted as well as people who came on later. the vetting process became more and more formalized. they dependod flynn to tell the truth and do his own due diligence and now realize you have to have a lot of oversight on this. >> what your saying is the administration did a bad job of vetting michael flynn. >> i think they did a fair job on it, but it's obvious they have to do more than that. hey, don, listen, i'm not going to remind you he's the only democrat in the administration. obviously, you have to keep your eye on these people. >> jack, jack, jack. a fair job when you look at what happened with -- that he didn't, you know, give certain disclosures. young it's a fair job he had to resign. that was a fair job of vetting. come on, jack. >> listen, i think that it's
atrocious he did not turn in all his paperwork. i'm in agreement on that. >> okay. can we talk about sally yates. sally yates is going to testify. what does that mean? >> look, sally yates knows an awful lot about conversations. >> she was the deputy attorney general before. >> right. deputy attorney general. she was fired because she was insubordinate. and she knows a lot about where bodies are buried, about conversations held in the white house. she went to the white house counsel and said, you know, look. there's a lot of funny stuff going on here. conversations perhaps that shouldn't have been had between transition officials and, who knows, russians. she knows what the intercept said. and pam can speak to this better than i can, but, you know, sally yates is somebody that democrats
want to hear from probably more than republicans. and, you know, she's now viewed as a partisan figure because she was insubordinate and did get fired but we'd want to know what she actually said to the white house counsel when she said, wait a minute. these intercepts that we've listened to, there may be something in them. >> yeah. pamela -- gloria said you can speak to that better. go ahead. >> right. sally yates, as gloria said, was fired by president trump for being insubordinate. but she was a key figure in michael flynn's firing himself because she was the one to say, look, i looked at the transcripts and he is lying about this and could be subject to blackmail by the russians because he did talk about sanctions. and she's someone who wants to talk. she's been under the radar.
laying low since she was fired by president trump. i do think she wants to talk and, of course, this is an opportunity when she testified before the judiciary committee to not only talk about what she knew about the flynn situation but other issues related to the russia investigation. >> the question is, michael, insubordination or just doing her job? you know yates and you think her testimony is going to be a good thing but you have some concerns. why? >> i don't know that we'll hear publicly all she has to say. probably the most important and compelling thing we'll get out of her testimony will be the timeline and some of the sequence of how some of the conversations came about. we may get the sequence of when certain people were told certain things. i don't know that we'll get into the crux of what that were. the reason is simple. she was privy, acting attorney general at the time and deputy attorney general before that. she's privy to information that may be classified. she's also privy to information about potentially ongoing investigations. so i don't think we'll get into
that but really the timeline may start to tell us, when did they pick people up on the wire. when were certain conversations relayed to other people and when would we have expected other folks to have budget improprieties either in the trump transition team or later. >> pamela brown, thank you. everyone else, stick around. a federal judge blocking part of another president trump's executive frds. what this means for sanctuary cities and could the president's other executive orders be under threat as well?
[ bell rings ] [ male announcer ] customink offers custom apparel that will help grow your business. choose from one of our awesome designs or simply upload your own logo to the best collection of products like t-shirts, polos, jackets, and more. it's fun and easy to promote your company and build your brand with customink. ♪ your designs, quality products, free shipping. get started today at customink.com. [fbi agent] you're a brave man, your testimony will save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible. [hero] i'll take my chances.
with tempur-pedic.t our proprietary material automatically adjusts to your weight, shape and temperature. so you sleep deeply, and wake up feeling powerful. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com this is precisely what president trump did not want to here. another federal judge blocking another one of his executive orders. blocking the administration from taking funds from sanctuary cities. this is another blow to president trump's agenda. explain what happened? >> we saw this judge out in california, don, who said that
the efforts by the federal government to penalize cities who are sanctuary cities by withholding federal money for them was -- didn't say it was unconstitutional but he did say it was on the way to becoming unconstitutional. obviously, paraphrasing. basically said that these cities would be harmed if the federal government held this money back. so it was a very big win for these mayors and for these attorney generals and these city attorneys who believe that they should be -- not have to participate in rounding up folks who are here illegally. so a big win for them. a bad loss for donald trump when you couple it with all his other immigration -- >> so take us to the white house. what did they say? >> they didn't mince any words here. and tonight rinse priebus, the chief of staff, pointed out, of course, this is the ninth circuit which they don't like and say it's completely liberal and will never rule in their
favor. rinse priebus said theets ninth circuit going bananas. and, you know, he made the case these are plaintiffs shopping for courts, that they can get to that they know are going to rule in their favor. and at the end of his statement he said, look. we'll win at the supreme court at some point and we're going to take action to appeal this. of course they're going to appeal it. and they believe that they can win at the supreme court. they've just gotten neil gorsuch on the court. and i think they understand these things in the end are going to go to the highest level. >> the travel ban. they're appealing that. i've been watching the network. you've been doing a lot rchting on the 100-day agenda. how does this fit into that now? >> i don't think it's in the win category. i think it goes along with the travel ban, which is to be determined. and they're still in the courts. they're coming up against a
harsh reality that when you really try n turn a battleship around very quickly, and you have campaigned on something and you promised something, whether it's repealing obamacare or whether it's a travel ban, the courts are a separate branch of government. separate but equal. and they are coming up against this time and time again, in the case of the health care, they're coming up against their own republicans. so the first 100 days has really been a reality check for people in the white house. and their large successes have come on their executive actions. as you see tonight, sometimes those are going to get challenged in the courts. >> is this the problem, phil, with governing by executive action is that they don't always have teeth and once they are, is this what you run up against? >> it is. there's a silver lining in everything. if you do this for 25, 30 years you look at what's a setback for
the white house and you see an opportunity for law enforcement. number one, law enforcement officials i've talked to said, look, we've got to walk the beat. we've got murder, rape, violent crime which is by and large down in this country but do you want to take an urban police officer and say i want you to spend more time on immigration than violent crime? there's a resource question here that's a silver lining. i'm a counterterrorism guy. if you go to a community and you say, i want you to raise your hand and tell me if somebody in your family is thinking about joining isis, what do you think they say if you say, i might also ask you whether you're an illegal immigrant? there are silver linings in this. so i understand why ruling by executive order is a problem. but what the judge has done today is also an opportunity for law enforcement. >> michael, i have to ask you, in the ruling, the judge said, quote if there was doubt about the scope of the order, they've erased it with their public comments. here's jeff sessions just last
month. listen to this. >> unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies to frustrate this enforcement of immigration laws. the department of justice will also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates 1373. >> so, michael, this isn't the first time a judge has used the administration's own words against them. >> we're seeing the same thing we saw with the travel ban and what sessions was trying to do is talk about the idea of the spending power of congress being the hammer that now the executive branch was going to wield over these cities if they didn't put into place an immigration enforcement plan in agreement with the president. and that's just not appropriate. and the judge cited justice roberts. i will say this, too. one of the things that concerns me the most as we listen to the rhetoric is a total lack of respect for the judiciary. whether it be talking about this
judge or the ninth circuit or judges of the travel ban or whether it was jeff sessions making some off-the-cuff remark about hawaii and the judge out there and whether or not somebody on an island, i think he said, could control what happened to the united states. >> an island in the pacific. >> it's gotten out of hand. those words, like the words during the campaign and just like the sort of chest-bumping rhetoric we've heard about immigration enforcement, those things are coming back to hurt the administration. >> jack, listen. you were there in congress. is he finding out the hard way that executive orders are not that effective. maybe he should be focussing on actual legislation? >> well, i think he's going to continue to -- the federal government has extremely high discretionary power when it comes to doling out grants, transportation grants, water and sewer grants, cdbg, the community block grants. and if these cities think that that's not going to happen, they're crazy. and i'll say this, michael, they're crazier than the ninth
circuit court. >> priebus said bananas. i've got to -- >> the ninth district makes the cartoon channel look serious sometimes. that's how irresponsible they purpose when they quote what somebody says in a campaign and use it to make a political determination on law, they don't deserve the respect. that's like saying every member of congress, whatever he or she said on the floor of the hour, we're going to apply that to the law any time it comes up. >> quickly jack, please. >> but that was the attorney general. he -- that was attorney general jeff sessions. >> that was the ninth district. >> i'm talking about the clip we just heard was the attorney general of the united states basically threatening, talking about clawing back money if these cities didn't -- >> but the federal government -- >> i'm out of time of. i'm out time of. thank you all. when we come back, i'm going to speak to a member of the senate judiciary committee and
looking sharp len. who's the lucky lady? i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. okay! ...awkward.
(vo) when you wake up with miracle-ear... ...your mornings can come to life with sound. our exclusive speech isolation technology transforms a bustling café into a clear connection that helps you hear the laugh that made you fall in love with her in the first place. and, at miracle-ear, we take the time to get to know you, grandpa! so we can ensure you hear what matters most in your world. call, click or come in today to learn how to start your better days. miracle-ear...hear a better day.
the white house promising to take action to appeal the latest challenge to one of the president's executive orders. a federal judge plocking the effort to punish sanctuary cities. rinse priebus says it's the ninth circuit going bananas. now i want to bring in senator richard blumenthal, a member of the judiciary committee. thank you for joining us. i want your reaction to a federal judge blocking president trump's executive order on sanctuary cities. what do you think? >> this step is unsurprising because president trump's executive order is clearly constitutionally overreaching and trying to use local police and law enforcement as federal agents. he simply cannot commandeer local police to do the bidding of federal police. it's welcome, significant, and i hope we'll reverse the present
trend toward unconstitutional overreaching by the executive branch. >> to your point, let's talk more about that. a judge found this executive order could violate the constitution because the power to allocate funds belongs to the congress, not the president. do you think the president understands that separation of power? >> the president has given every sign that he fails to understand the rule of law. he's attacked an independent judiciary that is a pillar of our democracy mean has demeaned and disparaged the free press, and he has disregarded the plain constitutional powers of congress and what he said about health care and a variety of other programs where constitutionally, congress has a role to play. he might well learn a lesson from this executive order, and i hope that he will. >> so let's turn to russia, senator. the russia investigation and the news today about michael flynn.
do you think michael flynn is guilty of a crime and if so, what crime? >> if these facts are true, as disclosed today, that he failed to disclose on his ffsf-86 that he took payments and benefits from the russians, that federal form submitted in connection with the security clearance, that very well may be a violation of federal law. likewise his failure to register as a federal agent when working for the turkish government. his failure to disclose other kinds of payments, and his taking of those payments as a retired military officer all require investigation by a special independent counsel. a prosecutor who has the independence and impartiality to be totally untied to the department of justice hierarchy. the deputy attorney general or
the attorney general himself. that's why a special prosecutor is so critically important, independent of the president. >> i found it interesting that in december you asked for michael flynn's security clearance to be reviewed. why were you concerned back then? >> i was concerned because of reports about these payments, reports that appeared in the press which now have been confirmed. and i believe the press has performed a vital role. and heroes of this, their finest hour is likely to be the press and our independent judiciary. i was concerned because national security is involved. he was the national security adviser. and, likewise, the rule of law which is so important to this country in good times and bad and we are facing a looming constitutional crisis. not unlike what happened in watergate era. >> senate minority leader chuck schumer said that this flynn
story may be just a tip of the iceberg. do you agree, and why do you think he would say that? >> if he meant that it may indicate other involvement and possible collusion, aiding and abetting by trump associates in the russian interference in our elections, he is absolutely right because take just some of the names we know. roger stone, paul manafort, carter page. these individuals and the allegations involving them could potentially lead to a major investigation of trump associates aiding and abetting or complicity in the russian interference in our election. and that interference is beyond dispute. the intelligence community has established it and there's bipartisan consensus that it happened. the question that requires a special prosecutor to investigate is whether and how
trump associates participated or colluded in some way in that interference. >> does the evidence so far show snat. >> the evidence certainly has to be pursued. and there is more than what is called a prima facie case on its face. more than ample evidence for an investigation to pursue vigorously and independently, which is why we need a special prosecutor but also why the fbi is already investigating it. and there's certainly indications of a lot of fire behind the smoke. >> we learned today that former acting attorney general sally yates and the former director of national intelligence james clapper are testifying before your committee, the senate judiciary committee in a few weeks about possible coordination during the election between trump advisers and the russian government. what do you want to hear from them? >> i want director clapper's insight as to what and how the
russian interference happened and what kind of assistance they may well have received from americans. specifically associates or workers in the trump campaign or the transition. and i want to hear from sally yates, why she was fired for blowing the whistle on general flynn? what happened to her because that is powerful evidence about the need for special prosecutor. she was the deputy attorney general trying to do her job and her boss was the president. her firing is a clear sign that the president will not tolerate an impartial, vigorous investigation here. >> senator blumenthal, thank you. >> thank you. when we come back, president trump has a lot of tough talk for mexico, but who knew he was eyeing our neighbor to the north. >> people don't realize canada has been very rough on the united states. >> canada? really? we'll tell you why, next.
as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily ...and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk
build a wall on the border with mexico, a promise he's made over n over and over and over. even today. >> the wall gets built. 100%. >> but if you think he's going to let canada get off easy, think again. >> people don't realize canada's been very rough on the united states. everyone thinks of canada as being wonderful and they are, i love canada. they've outsmarted our pligsss for years and you people understand that. >> so the north and south. mexico on our southern border gets a wall. the president says it's to stop bad hombres. way up north, canada is on the president's hit list as well and believe it or not, it's all about timber and milk. let's discuss now. cnn political commentator ana navarro, steven moore and jason candor. good evening. steven, i'm going to start with you. the president said that canada
has been very rough on the united states and taking advantage of us. of all places, why the tough talk on canada all of a sudden? what's this all about? >> well, i'm a supporter of donald trump's and i agree with most of what he wants to do on the economy but this is one area where i strongly disagree. i think that the whole idea which was kind of reagan vision going back to the '80s of making north america a big free trade zone is exactly the right thing to do. it's good for all of the countries of north america. but there have been some problems on the south of the border, sure. and those have to be resolved. but i haven't seen too many people complaining about trade with canada. and it is not as if they are bitie in beating us with lower wages. sometimes the lumber up there is cheaper to produce and that makes building homes and other things in the united states cheaper. i don't see the economic rationale. >> is he declaring a trade war on canada? >> no, i wouldn't say that. that would be taking it too far.
he's trying to send a message that, you know, to some of the trump voters he's going to be off on trade. it's an issue that i just find myself in disagreement with him on. it's not the end of the world but it's going to make, don, it's going to make housing and other kinds of products we buy that require lumber, they're going to be more expensive. >> prime minister trudeau met with the president at the white house in february, the relationship between the two leaders seemed very warm. i want to play some of what president trump said during that time. >> america is deeply fortunate to have a neighbor like canada. we have before us the opportunity to build even more bridges. we have a very outstanding trade relationship with canada. we'll be tweaking it. we'll be doing certain things that are going to benefit both of our countries. it's a much less severe situation than what's taking place on the southern border. >> so, jason, is this still true? or is trouble now brewing on
both the southern and northern borders? >> don, everything has changed because when he said that, he wouldn't coming up on 100 days with no wins. obviously, the situation is totally different now. now you have to take an action. it's not all that unreasonable. it had been in the works for a while. this is something that's going on for a long time. and then if you're president trump, you have to pretend that you're take something huge action and actually manage to do something that's pretty hard which is offend canada. >> ana, at the same time, listen, the president again, the trouble was on the mexican border and the southern border and all of a sudden comes out with this and the canadian -- our neighbors to the north. it was asked if -- by him today or at the press conference, the white house briefing, whether this was sort of something to send a signal or was this a change of topics? what do you think of this? >> first of all, i come at everything that donald trump does as it being part of -- forget the art of the deal.
it's the art of the distraction. today the press day was, his daughter ivanka hitting hissed and booed in germany. his wall hit a wall. michael flynn is in deep hot water. and so, you know, let's start a confrontation. a trade confrantation with canada. so now america, in addition to having to hoard your tequila and avocados, you'll also have to hoard your maple syrup and canadian whiskey. there's something i want to do before we continue talking about this which is commend stephen moore. if we were in the same city i'd give him a kiss on the forehead. night after night we come on tv and hear trump supporters who are incapable of finding any fault with him, even when we know that in principle they disagree with him. what stephen moore said is i'm a trump supporter but at my koerks my principles i'm not compromising that in order to excuse or justify what he's doing. for that, i commend you and hope
other people take more of an example for what you did because i'm bored of talking and confronting crazy people saying crazy things. >> thank you for saying that. let me make a quick comment about that. look, i don't enjoy disagreeing with the president because i like the president and support most of what he does. it's interesting the first time i met with donald trump, and he asked larry kudlow n myself to work for his campaign as economic advisers, i remember we said, donald, we don't agree with you on trade. this is something i admire about trump. he said, look, we can agree to disagree on that issue, but i want your help on tax issues and so on. i think that's an admirable feature of donald trump. on this one, i just don't see the sound economics here, and it's hard to defend. i'm a free trade guy. >> jason, we mentioned the prime minister trudeau and president trump because in just a couple of hours ooh they spoke on the phone about today's tensions. here's part of the statement. the president and prime minister
trudeau spoke today. they discussed the dairy trade in wis wirks new york state and various other places. they also discussed lumber coming into the united states. it was a very amicable call. prime minister trudeau's press office just released their own statement about this call which gave a lot more detail about the discussion. this is a bit of a different tone. here's what they say. the prime minister stressed that the government of canada will vigorously defend the interests of the canadian softwood lumber industry n the canada/wu.s. daiy trade is a trade which heavily favors the u.s. >> sounds like it went really well. sounds like what happened was president trump continued to do what he does, which is make everything, you know, this is about the distraction, i think another way to put it is it's about the sale. he's a salesman. he's not an honest salesman. he goes out and is constantly trying to figure out how to
sell. when it comes time to do things, he's not delivering value. that's what we're seeing. it's all talk. all the time. all presentation. and no ability to follow through. today really should have been a layup. what he was doing was, it's not a totally unreasonable thing. it's the kind of thing that usually wouldn't even be news but he couldn't get through it. it's one step forward, two steps back. that seems to be how it works with president trump. we've got to take a break. we're going to talk about the wall. is it going to be built? who is going to pay for it? (alarm beeping) (vo) when you wake up with miracle-ear... ...your mornings can come to life with sound. our exclusive speech isolation technology transforms a bustling café into a clear connection that helps
you hear the laugh that made you fall in love with her in the first place. and, at miracle-ear, we take the time to get to know you, grandpa! so we can ensure you hear what matters most in your world. call, click or come in today to learn how to start your better days. miracle-ear...hear a better day. manait's a series of is nsmart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it. glucerna. everyday progress. [fbi agent] you're a brave man, your testimony will save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv.
fothere's a seriousy boomers virus out there that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. one in 30 boomers has hep c, yet most don't even know it. because it can hide in your body for years without symptoms, and it's not tested for in routine blood work. the cdc recommends all baby boomers get tested. if you have hep c, it can be cured. for us it's time to get tested. ask your healthcare provider for the simple blood test. it's the only way to know for sure.
and we're back, president trump says his promised wall on the border mexico will be built. question is who pays? back now with my panel. first, at this round table where president trump expressed harsh words for a candidate he was also asked about the border wall. listen. >> the wall's going to get built, in case anybody has any question. the wall's going to get built and the wall is going to stop drugs and it's going to stop a lot of people from coming in here and huge effect on human trafficking which is a tremendous problem in this world.
a problem that nobody talks about, but it's a problem that's probably worse than any time in the history of this world. human trafficking, what's going on. the wall is going to get built, and we're setting record numbers in terms of stopping people from coming in and stopping drugs from coming in. you see the numbers down 73, 74%. i will say secretary kelly, formerly general kelly is doing an incredible job. and i was just with him a little while ago. and he said, we definitely, desperately need the wall. and we're going to have the wall built, i don't know what people are talking about. i watch the shows and the pundits in the morning, i don't know what they're talking about. the wall gets built, 100%. >> 100%, who's paying for it? it's a major sticking point right now. no matter what the president says. >> sure as held ain't going to be mexico. it's going to get paid by the u.s. tax payers. i think we're going to end up with a discussion at some point of well that depends on what your definition of wall is.
because this wall, the way that donald trump all throughout the campaign, big beautiful wall, he was a builder, he knew how to construct them. that's not going to get built. that's not going to happen. congress is not supportive of that. it's not only the democrats. there's a lot of border state republicans who don't like the idea of having to tell their constituents that they have to fork over their land to build this wall. and there's a lot of republicans who don't like the idea of having to appropriate all this money that will not be offset to build this wall when there's so many other infrastructure projects that can and should be done in the united states. but, you know, until his dying day on earth, donald trump with his last breath is going to be saying, the wall, the wall, the wall is going to get built. he's going to be like don. >> excuse me. you caught me off guard with that one. but listen, to me, when i heard there -- especially when he said
73, 74% come across the border, if that is indeed true, i have to check those numbers, wouldn't that show you that governing and how you -- what stance and what laws you use to fight immigration or to control immigration, doesn't that matter more than a wall? if you have 70 some percent in his words of people not coming across the border, then why build a wall? >> a lot of people, most people i would say are in favor of border security, but it just doesn't have to be in the form of a wall. and, i would tell you that, donald trump's policies and his stances have served as a deterrent to illegal immigration. >> right. >> people don't want to come here because they think that donald trump is going to deport them the hell out. >> that's what i said -- >> your stance on immigration is important. >> he has had an effect of lowing immigration to the country. >> steven, there's been a lot of back and forth on whether the president will insist on funding for this wall this week. do you know where that stands? >> just a couple of quick comments. first of all, the reason and
reduced a lot for the last decade. the economy stunk and there are jobs and there were, you know, 15 to 20 and still to come. and on the wall, i would say this, i'm for legal immigration. as anna knows, strong advocate of legal immigration. i think we need more, not less. the american people spoke loud and clear in this election. they want that wall built. and it has to be built. i think for political reasons and also for policy reasons -- >> i've got to go. i've got to get -- i've got to get -- >> we can't find, 6, $8 billion out of a budget. makes no sense. >> will this wall be built? >> don, the wall is donald trump's imagine make it friend. and congress reached out and tried to say this week that they wanted to reframe it, redefine it as an increase in funding for border security. they tried to give him a lifeline.
republicans in congress tried to give him a lifeline. but president trump is the last person -- he's still talking about this wall. the part you didn't play in the audio from today, i was listening to it earlier today when it was live, they asked him, when do you think it's going to get built. >> in his first term. >> they said will it be in the first term. he thought about it and said, oh sure, something about that. he doesn't have any idea. he just likes talking about the wall -- >> i've got to run. >> going to get dumped up. >> we'll be right back.
it's a question rocking the white house. did michael flynn break the law. this is cnn tonight, i'm don lemon. jason chaffetz and elijah cummins saying this today about the president's disgraced national security advisor. >> as a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from russia, turkey, or anybody else. it appears as if you did take it, it was inappropriate. and there are repercussions for the violation of law. plus, caitlyn jenner, why she says this about president trump. >> i would love to go down and play golf with him and say why the hell did you do that? >> we want to get right to the latest on the russia investigation. first, cnn's justice correspondent pamela brown has that